Derrick was frustrated. He was the change manager on the ‘Strategic Purchasing Project’ and was trying to find out what had to change.

What he was confronted with was two sets of process maps – the ‘as is’ and the ‘to be’. Certainly there were differences between the two sets of maps and Derrick’s job was to translate these differences into organisational change actions.
“Who produced these maps?” he asked.

“We did,” replied Joe, head of the process team. “We consulted with the users about their current processes and problems. We documented the ‘as is’ processes and got them to sign them off in a workshop. More recently, we have developed the ‘to be’ processes and are currently running workshops to get the users’ agreement – and we’re nearly there, only a few more people to sign-off.”

“So we own the ‘to be’ processes? asked Derrick.

“Oh no!” responded Joe, “by the end of the workshops the users will own them as they will have signed them off.”

“OK, let me rephrase my question,” continued Derrick, “we came up with the new way as recorded in the ‘to be’ process maps?”

“Yes, but with user consultation.” Joe replied.

“And what form exactly did this ‘consultation’ take?” asked Derrick.

Joe explained, “When we confirmed the ‘as is’ processes we asked about the issues and problems involved in the process and got the users’ ideas for improvement, some of which we’ve used.”

“We’ve also gone back to some of them on specific points and options for discussion – so, full consultation.”

“I see,” mused Derrick, “and so who set the improvement objectives?”

“That depends what you mean by ‘improvement objectives’,” Joe said. “We’re the process experts, so our approach is to look at the ‘as is’ and brainstorm improvements that will streamline the processes. So, in a way, the ‘improvement objective’ is always the same – streamline the process by taking out steps and automating where possible.”

“Is that all?” asked Derrick.

“What do you mean, ‘Is that all?’?” retorted Joe somewhat affronted. “We’ve improved hundreds of processes this way and enabled the new systems to be used effectively. This approach works well, and is industry standard practice.”

“Which industry’s ‘standard practice’?”

“The IT industry’s!” responded Joe.

“This is where we might start to find the problem,” said Derrick carefully as he knew he was entering dangerous territory. “If you look at our firm’s industry this approach may not be standard practice.”

“If we look at our company results over the past few years, you cannot say we are excelling or have made significant leaps forward in terms of performance despite all of our process improvement and expenditure on new systems,” Derrick continued.

“So maybe we need a more radical approach.” Derrick waited for a reaction but none came.

“Let’s look at this Strategic Purchasing Project. The company’s goal is to save money. We believe that with a better system and streamlined processes we can save money on strategic purchases. Right?”

Joe nodded.

“But what about making life easier for our staff?”

“But a streamlined process does!” interrupted Joe.

“Does it?” asked Derrick. “Its quite possible to streamline the process and still leave in the most annoying elements of the process.”

“For example, in this process, for many staff any purchase above $20 has to be authorised by the purchaser’s manager. This step adds delay.”

“But its company policy.” responded Joe.

“I know that, but think about it. Fred the machine maintenance man needs a new part for his machine. It costs, say, $250. In the ‘to be’ process he has to get authorisation from his manager.” continues Derrick.

“The new system will route the authorisation electronically,” interjected Joe.

“I know that, but my question is, ‘What is the value of that authorisation?’ If you or I were the authorising manager, what value would we bring to this purchasing transaction?” asked Derrick.

“Control.” Responded Joe.

“What are we ‘controlling’?” asked Derrick.

“The level of expenditure. Otherwise Fred could bankrupt the company buying spare parts, or at least blow the maintenance budget,” responded Joe.

“I’m sorry, but my question still remains – where’s the value in the authorisation? Is the manager going to second-guess Fred’s need for this part?”

“We entrust Fred with a multi-million dollar machine. We rely on Fred to keep the machine working to the required capacity. We budget thousands a year for maintenance and spare parts. Every time he touches the machine we charge the machine cost centre at least $50 – and he knows that. He has no vested interest in alienating his machine centre colleagues by causing them unnecessary expenditure. They don’t currently have any say in his level of expenditure on their machine.”

“May be they should …” interrupted Joe.

“No! You’re missing the point – why don’t we treat Fred as a responsible adult, provide him with the necessary budget, expenditure to date reporting, access to stock-on-hand, purchasing costs and so on, so that he can run and authorise his own purchases?”

“But he’s only a maintenance worker,” responded Joe, “staff at his level don’t have expenditure authorisations over $20. We checked that!”

“But that’s my overall point,” exploded Derrick, “these ‘to be’ processes haven’t challenged the boundaries of the status quo. We’ve improved within the current constraints.”

“Why don’t we give maintenance workers authority to spend up to $500, say, on machine-related purchases? Maybe this limit should differ dependent on the worker or, maybe, the machine. Some machines you cannot buy a spare part for under $1000.”

“If you follow this line of thought,” continued Derrick animatedly, “coupled with supply agreements with the machine vendors, Fred would be able to order direct on the supplier and probably get the part 2-3 days faster than the current ‘to be’ process will allow.

“His frustration at the delays – and those of the machine centre crew and production management if the machine is down – are reduced. He can control his destiny and has no-where to go in terms of accountability for machine availability, parts supply and expenditure.”

“No one brought that up,” responded Joe.

“But how could they when we used the approach we’ve used,” retorted Derrick. “They are being asked to critique a ‘to be’ process that is better than today’s ‘as is’ process. They are, essentially, being asked, ‘Is this OK?’ not ‘Is this the best process for you to do your job?’ There’s a world of difference between those two questions.”

“So what should we do?” asked Joe sceptically.

“Well, we shouldn’t ‘consult’ the users … “ started Derrick.

“Not consult the users?!” exclaimed Joe amazed at Derrick’s apparent heresy.

“No, we shouldn’t ‘consult’ them, we need to make them part of the process. Get them to define and document the ‘as is’ process, debate the problems and identify the changes required to achieve the best way of doing strategic purchasing that saves money for the firm and improves our staff’s performance.”

“Lifting authorisation levels won’t achieve the cost saving.” Joe added cynically.

“Not necessarily true,” responded Derrick quickly. “Research has found that, often, when you raise authority levels the level of expenditure actually goes down!”

“But my real point is, expenditure authority levels should have been reviewed in order to simplify the process.
Management may decide to do nothing, limiting the amount of process simplification that can be made. But at least the opportunity will have been pursued.”

“With the checks and controls you can build into the new system the business risk would be minimal. So, we would not just be asking for the taking off of controls but the replacement of somewhat arbitrary manual expenditure controls with systems-managed targeted controls, in this example.”

“This is all detail,” continued Derrick, “what I’m trying to point out is this ‘as is – to be’ approach to process improvement doesn’t cause these necessary challenges to be made. It misses great opportunities to move to a new level of performance.”

“It also makes change management a difficult task as we have to extract required changes from the two sets of process maps rather then have the necessary changes be identified as part of the process of defining the new processes.”

“And how long do you think all this user involvement, policy challenging, change identification would take?” asked Joe defiantly.

“Fourteen weeks, that’s all.” responded Derrick.

Jed Simms is the creator of project-sponsor.com project-sponsor.com the first web site exclusively focused on the management aspects of project delivery and governance. He has written several books (some as novels) and over 60 articles and has been published across the world. His work has been rated as “outstanding innovation” and “world class” for thought leadership in project delivery.

The web site project-sponsor.com project-sponsor.com provides self-service practical materials for a variety of project-related roles includeing project sponsor, steering committee members, PMOs and Project Managers. The whole focus of the web site and its contents is to maximise the delivery of the business outcomes, benefits and value generated by projects. Currently, only 3-5% of projects deliver their potential. This site is designed to put you in this elite 5%.

An alternative to the ‘as is – to be’ approach is Business Requirements Simplification — a 14-week approach to re-engineering that consistently produces results four times greater than Six Sigma

More details on the web site or from mailto:Jed@project-sponsor.com Jed@project-sponsor.com

Popularity: 1% [?]

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!